Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Clarification of Terms: "Love" and "Evil"

Forum Quick Jump

108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 4:21 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi

Hmmm...I think that you're still missing the point. You keep trying to get away from the greater good thing. This is still based on greater good/lesser evil logic....like so...

Commiting evil like HOMICIDE is morally justified if it is being done for a greater good (saving a life that is IMMINENTLY in danger) or preventing a greater evil (shooting someone who is going to shoot another person. [COP STUFF!!!])

The logic is still there, Iconoclast. Timeframe is not the main issue. You see this, right?

Iconoclast

Sure. But notice how limited this concept is. Do you agree that the greater good / lesser evil CANNOT be theoretical? That it must be concrete and IMMINENT? And what do you mean that timeframe is not the main issue? Timeframe is of course an issue if by timeframe you mean that the greater good or lesser evil becomes a theoretical greater good or lesser evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 4:25 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi

I just want to note that you ARE granting validity to the "greater good" idea.

Iconoclast

ONLY to the idea that God allows the POSSIBILITY of evil in order to create the actual greater good.

NOT to the idea that God actually does the evil in order to allow the possibility of the greater good.

Big difference.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/27/2002 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

How much of a POSSIBILITY was the EVENTUAL emergence of evil to God, given the nature of interaction between free-willed beings? What do YOU think, given YOUR understanding of God's infinite intelligence, Iconoclast? I really want to know.

I'll put it plain. Was God an idiot or an completely, hopeless optimist?

To me, this is like someone positing that in the case of 300,000 people driving cars in a metropolitan area, NOT ONE OF THEM will EVER have an accident! Complete absurdity. Did God REALLY believe that NO ONE would ever sin or allow evil to emerge?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/27/2002 10:01:26 AM

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 9/27/2002 5:52 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi

quote:
PS: Brandi, give me some time. Thanks for the patience.

Thanks, Mephi. I look forward to the response I will receive from both you and Iconoclast! I really want some insight on the question I posed.

Doc

quote:
What are the metaphysical constraints on God that condition his interaction with us? We can only guess. But I would argue they include * irrevocable but finite free will * the regularity of the laws of nature * the power allotted to prayer

Just to be sure we all agree on this, because I don't see this as part of the list of conditions in God's interactions above, we must NOT forget that God CAN and DOES override all the above conditions through *miracles* -- divine interactions or appointments that no one can explain by any other means than by saying that God defied the laws of nature and intervened. Sometimes miracles come through prayer and sometimes they just happen (even without prayer.)

Just thought I'd throw that in with the list.

~Brandi~

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/27/2002 11:14 AM (GMT -6)

It's Friday, and I'm ready for the room with no furnature.

(Nice to read your post, Doc.)

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/27/2002 12:13 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra

I think someone could make a pretty strong case that having the power to save a child from being tortured, but nevertheless choosing not to do so is strait up evil.

Iconoclast

Yes. We would say that this person is COMPLICIT in the evil that occurred.

Let’s be more concrete here. IF you are in proximity to a person who is torturing another AND you have the power to stop them but don’t use it (all you have to do is say “stop” and the person will stop AND you don’t say “stop”) THEN you are complicit in the evil.

Agreed. To the extent that God is always everywhere present, God’s complicity in the evil of Zosia’s torture is exacerbated all the more.

quote:
Electra

The only way to justify such a choice is to argue that it somehow prevented a greater evil/somehow made a greater good possible.

Iconoclast

I disagree with this. The only justification I am aware of for doing evil or being complicit in evil is self-defense. This idea that it is OK to do evil in order to prevent a greater evil is not something our jurisprudence recognizes. The ONLY justification for being complicit in evil is when your life or someone else’s life is in IMMINENT danger. This is a very strict standard that our courts and juries uphold. Bottom line: It CAN’T BE THEORETICAL; else Andrea Yates would have been acquitted. It can’t even be probable – it must be IMMINENT.

This is why Mephi’s tortured wife or killed kids analogy doesn’t hold up. The kids being killed part (even though it may be probable) is still theoretical.

Let’s stick with the Zosia analogy. God was present in the midst of Zosia’s torture. God had the power to prevent it. God didn’t. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the distinction between theoretical and imminent danger. How does this distinction make a difference when it comes to God’s seeming complicity in what Zosia suffered?

quote:
Electra

I think that in S&PE Doc tries to show WHY WE CAN'T KNOW the answer to this question--namely, the complexity of creation, NOT the ambiguity of God's character. It seems like what Mephi has been saying is pretty consistent with this.

Iconoclast

What Doc shows in S&PE is that God CHOOSES NOT to control free-will beings strictly in their ability to choose THAT which materially affects their character formation – their ability to love. He shows that God wants us to choose love because love MUST be chosen.

Thus when we see a free-will being torturing a little girl we know that God is allowing this because He is choosing NOT to stop that free-will being from choosing evil BECAUSE the stopping of the free-will being will destroy that free-will being’s ability to choose love and thus ultimately destroy the free-will being.

The reason the complexity of creation is even brought up is to explain why God sometimes intervenes and sometimes He doesn’t.

It is true that the free-will of some victimizers was preserved, but it is also true that the free-will of a victim was destroyed. If God chose to cause one of the guards trip, giving Zosia just enough time to escape, no free-willed being’s ability to choose love would have been destroyed. On the contrary, if God chose to allow Zosia to be tortured and killed, her ability to choose love would be destroyed.

God is present and active in every situation. By faith we trust that God is at work for good. But because of the complexity of creation, this is not always clear to us. We simply don’t have enough information to draw conclusions about whether God couldn’t or God wouldn’t protect Zosia. If all we had to go on was this tragic event, on what basis could we claim that God is loving? There is some explanatory power to Doc’s 6 theses, but I think that in an event like the torture and murder of Zosia, even this explanation (which I personally consider to be the most persuasive) is not enough to conclusively demonstrate God’s goodness.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue that God is less than good. I just think this is a matter of faith--especially in stories like Zosia’s, where God is nowhere to be seen. Terry Fretheim addresses this in his book, The Suffering of God. When God’s activity in history was ambiguous—e.g. during the exile—the Israelites comforted themselves with creedal confessions and psalms that proclaimed God’s good and loving character, in spite of—and in the midst of—their tremendous suffering.

Thanks,
Electra

p.s. This is as far as I got in your post—I will try to get to the rest later.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Edited by - Electra on 09/27/2002 6:25:13 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/27/2002 2:24 PM (GMT -6)

Electra said:

quote:
It is true that the free-will of some victimizers was preserved, but it is also true that the free-will of a victim was destroyed. If God chose to cause one of the guards trip, giving Zosia just enough time to escape, no free-willed being’s ability to choose love would have been destroyed. On the contrary, if God chose to allow Zosia to be tortured and killed, her ability to choose love would be destroyed.

God is present and active in every situation. By faith we trust that God is at work for good. But because of the complexity of creation, this is not always clear to us. We simply don’t have enough information to draw conclusions about whether God couldn’t or God wouldn’t protect Zosia. If all we had to go on was this tragic event, on what basis could we claim that God is loving? There is some explanatory power to Doc’s 6 theses, but I think that in an event like the torture and murder of Zosia, even this explanation (which I personally consider to be the most persuasive) is not enough to conclusively demonstrate God’s goodness.

Please understand that I am not trying to argue that God is less than good. I just think this is a matter of faith--especially in stories like Zosia’s, where God is nowhere to be seen.

GREAT stuff, E. Brandi, still working...sheesh, stuff's getting busy...

Love,

"I know some dudes that would love to bring the hatred to ya'll
While I continue to bless you with ____ that's sacred to ya'll
Even if I had to bend you in place
I always put it down and rep my peoples from the most genuine place
From my street corner peoplez to my live peoplez everywhere
Too late for turning back, we takin' it there"

---the always illmatic Busta Rhymes from "Genesis"

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/27/2002 5:01 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 5:02 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

To the extent that God is always everywhere present, God’s complicity in the evil of Zosia’s torture is exacerbated all the more.
…
Please understand that I am not trying to argue that God is less than good. I just think this is a matter of faith--especially in stories like Zosia’s, where God is nowhere to be seen.

Iconoclast

I don’t get where you are coming from Electra. You seem to want to disagree with every possible explanation for why God is not complicit in evil and yet you say that God being good is a matter of faith to you.

Do you believe that the greater the tension between what appears to be true and what we have faith in means that our faith is therefore greater?

If our faith is very strong that our spouse would never bad mouth us and yet we hear through the grapevine that our spouse said something very terrible about us wouldn’t our faith in our spouse cause us to immediately come up with scenarios for why what we heard was not true? Think about what you would say to a friend who insisted that they heard that your spouse bad-mouthed you. Wouldn’t you start coming up with all sorts of plausible reasons for why there was a legitimate misunderstanding?

What am I missing?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/27/2002 10:51:19 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 5:16 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

It is true that the free-will of some victimizers was preserved, but it is also true that the free-will of a victim was destroyed. If God chose to cause one of the guards trip, giving Zosia just enough time to escape, no free-willed being’s ability to choose love would have been destroyed. On the contrary, if God chose to allow Zosia to be tortured and killed, her ability to choose love would be destroyed.

Iconoclast

Yes. This is the logic from the human point of view. But is this also true from God’s point of view? If Zosia is killed and comes before God has her free-will to choose love been destroyed?

Also, let’s say that the nazi guard formed the intention to torture Zosia and God prevented him from carrying out this intention by tripping him. What then? Will God continue to frustrate the intention of the nazi guard to torture some innocent victim forever? Now, if this tripping caused the nazi guard to realize the error of his ways and repent then that is a really good thing. But what if God had tripped this nazi guard ten times already and the intention just kept growing and growing. Have you ever tried to get a two-year old to give up on their intention to get a little toy by physically preventing them?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/27/2002 5:28 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra: during the exile—the Israelites comforted themselves with creedal confessions and psalms that proclaimed God’s good and loving character, in spite of—and in the midst of—their tremendous suffering.

E-, you are the Sem student. Was the view as humanistically developed way back then as we now feel it must have been? How was that view that they comforted themselves with really formed?

Sorry, that was very vague of me.

What I'm thinking of his how the Word and Spirit became more clearly personal as scripture progresses.

The thing I think they held on to was the fact of God's faithfulness to his covenant from generation to generation, and inspite of their failings. Contrast that to the "other gods" to get a true picture. I'm not so sure they had the developed idea (besides a hope -- which some seers knew more fully) that you might be thinking.

"Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards", Charlie Brown quotes. That is a given. They knew that. But the hope in God's faithfulness might have been something different than is popularly debated and strained at in this generation.

And as I think a few here have remarked upon... How central would dormroom debates be considered by those today facing potential martyrdom. Does the Spirit lead them, in hours perhaps their last, to ponder these issues. Or does their vision of God's glory grow deeper?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 5:51 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

How much of a POSSIBILITY was the EVENTUAL emergence of evil to God, given the nature of interaction between free-willed beings? What do YOU think, given YOUR understanding of God's infinite intelligence, Iconoclast? I really want to know.

I'll put it plain. Was God an idiot or an completely, hopeless optimist?

Iconoclast

I think God knew that it was inevitable. I also think that the probability of it getting as bad as it did in the time of Noah was considered by God to be low – else, why did He regret creating us?

But so what? When we have children don’t we know that it is inevitable that they are going to suffer and eventually die? Is it better to not have children? Is it being complicit in evil to have children?

IF you choose to have children then I cannot see how you can argue (with any conviction) that God should NOT have created free-will beings with the capacity to share in His triune love when He knew that it was inevitable that some, out of their own free choice, would choose Eternal Death.

If you DO argue this but say that people choose to have children without really thinking through the horrible consequences for their children (they do it out of selfish interests or ignorance) then wouldn’t you have to at least be consistent by saying that the RIGHT thing to do is for everyone to stop having children?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 6:09 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

On a side note, I DO think that process theists have an advantage because their "CAN'T" truly IS metaphysical in every sense. The "Christian theist" sense is ultimately SELF-CHOSEN, which means it's NOT metaphysical in every sense.

Iconoclast

I would go farther and say that because it is ultimately SELF-CHOSEN that means it is NEVER metaphysical – it is always SELF-CHOSEN in every “fractal” moment of the original CHOOSING. God choosing to create us with free-will for love means that God chooses to allow Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, means that God chooses to allow Cain to kill Abel, means that God chooses to allow the nazi guard to torture Zosia. He chooses in the very moment for the exact same reason He chose in the beginning. If it was a true and good choice then, it is still a true and good choice now.

God almost chose to quit choosing to allow us to do evil. But then He found Noah.

The only problem I see with process theism is that it cannot deal with the evidence of God’s intervention in the Bible and in our lives.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/28/2002 01:57:30 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 6:35 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

I don't think that you are being complete here. Divine intervention doesn't NECESSITATE exerting compatibilism of any type. God would NOT have been stopping the Nazi's free-willed choices if God were to have divinely saved Zosia by some other means. The explanation of why God sometimes intervenes and sometimes doesn't MUST include this!

Iconoclast

You are right, one must show that for God to endlessly continue to intervene through physical mechanisms on the nazi guard’s intention is the same as compatibilistically turning the nazi guard into a “loving” robot or giving him a sentence of Eternal Death (which are pretty much the same thing).

My argument for this is the two-year old argument outlined above. If a free-will agent forms a strong intention that divine physical intervention continues to fail to divert, which means that it tends to grow and grow, then for God to continue to prevent the free-will agent from carrying out his intention and fully experiencing the consequences of that intention, which is nothing more than learning the “meaning” of his intention, is like having a child and locking him or her up in a room for their entire life, it is to kill their ability to choose.

For all we know (and here is where the complexity argument comes in) God may have frustrated the nazi guard’s intention to do violence to some small girl 10 times in the recent past seeking to sway the nazi guard by gentle influence but since the nazi guard chose to feed the violent intention beyond the threshhold where it was prudent for God to continue to physically intervene God finally chose to quit intervening.

Have you ever had the experience where you formed a bad intention and then something weirdly coincidental happened to prevent you from carrying out that intention? I have always considered this sort of thing to be a loving smack-upside-the-head by God.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/27/2002 6:54 PM (GMT -6)

Electra: during the exile—the Israelites comforted themselves with creedal confessions and psalms that proclaimed God’s good and loving character, in spite of—and in the midst of—their tremendous suffering.

Al: E-, you are the Sem student. Was the view as humanistically developed way back then as we now feel it must have been? How was that view that they comforted themselves with really formed?...What I'm thinking of his how the Word and Spirit became more clearly personal as scripture progresses.

El: Actually, the creedal material I’m refering to is considered some of the most ancient in Scripture; it spans many traditions and types of literature, extending from the exodus to the return from exile: e.g. Exod. 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:15; 103:8, 17l 145:8; Jer. 32:18–19; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Nah. 1:3; etc. No other text recurs so frequently—the only contender is the phrase: “his steadfast love endures forever” (Ps. 136).

Al: The thing I think they held on to was the fact of God's faithfulness to his covenant from generation to generation, and inspite of their failings. Contrast that to the "other gods" to get a true picture. I'm not so sure they had the developed idea (besides a hope -- which some seers knew more fully) that you might be thinking.

El: What do you think I’m thinking? I am not refering to any “humanistically developed idea.” I’m refering to something that the Bible portrays as just about the most direct revelation of God that a human being ever survived.

Al: "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards", Charlie Brown quotes. That is a given. They knew that. But the hope in God's faithfulness might have been something different than is popularly debated and strained at in this generation.

El: Again, you’ll have to be more straight up about your assumtions here.

Al: And as I think a few here have remarked upon... How central would dormroom debates be considered by those today facing potential martyrdom.

El: I cited a source for the claim I made, and it had nothing to do with dormrooms. I haven’t set foot in a dormroom for about seven years. I live in my own house.

Al: Does the Spirit lead them, in hours perhaps their last, to ponder these issues. Or does their vision of God's glory grow deeper?

El: The Spirit led Jeremiah to ponder these words when he was in the midst of famine so severe mothers were eating their children (Lam. 3:20–32). There is no vision of God deeper than the one that forced Moses to wear a veil for the rest of his life.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/27/2002 7:20 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra

To the extent that God is always everywhere present, God’s complicity in the evil of Zosia’s torture is exacerbated all the more.
…
Please understand that I am not trying to argue that God is less than good. I just think this is a matter of faith--especially in stories like Zosia’s, where God is nowhere to be seen.

Iconoclast

I don’t get where you are coming from Electra. You seem to want to disagree with every possible explanation for why God is not complicit in evil and yet you say that God being good is a matter of faith to you.

Denying the conclusiveness of explanations is not the same as disagreeing with every possible explanation for why God is not complicit in evil. In fact, I have offered some of my own explanations, and I have granted that Doc’s explanation is the most persuasive. But no explanation changes the fact that the goodness of God’s activity in history—especially tragic history—is ambiguous, therefore both faith and offense are potentially reasonable alternatives.

Seeking plausible explanations for why God’s goodness may not be evident in any particular event is a valuable enterprise. Doing so may remove unecessary stumbling blocks to faith for ourselves and others. But denying the conclusiveness of these explanations is not the same as denying the goodness of God. It simply entails relocating the conclusiveness to faith in God’s goodness rather than our knowledge of God’s goodness.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Edited by - Electra on 09/28/2002 12:41:11 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 9/27/2002 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

I don't think Process Thought has any advantage here. The supposed advantage of Process thought is that God is metaphysically bound, so he CAN'T unilaterally intervene to prevent evil. The supposed disadvantage of Christian Theism is that God is not metaphysically bound, so he CAN unilaterally intervene to prevent evil. Hence, it is argued, whatever happens must somehow be "for the better" since God always does the best, and even when he doesn't DO the best, his refraining from acting is "for the best."

BUT, the dichotomy between "can't" and "can" here is false. God CAN create a square or a circle. But if he chooses to create a square, he CAN'T also make IT a circle.

Semeia:

True, he can’t make it BOTH a square and a circle, but certainly he can change his mind at any moment and change a square INTO a circle. If he can stop the sun and turn Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt and bring the ten plagues and bring Jesus into the world by a virgin birth, not to mention the creation of the universe to begin with, it would seem perfectly logical to assume that God has the power to do what he wants. If he wanted to change us into robots to do His bidding there is nothing at all stopping Him. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that God Himself lacks free will – that he is somehow bound by the principle of love such that once He decided at the beginning of creation to make free will creatures capable of love that he is forced by the “rules” or “principles” of creation in such a way that he can never again CHOOSE differently. But if we say that then we are in essence saying that God Himself has no free will in this matter (He once did, but no longer) – that he is stuck with the rules he set up. If that were true, then we would have to say that God did not CHOOSE to love each of us individually, but rather that He CHOSE to love humans IN GENERAL, in the ABSTRACT, back at the start of creation. Which would mean that God Himself could not love. And the whole argument for Open Theism, that Love involves risk and must be chosen, when applied to God in this scenario would seem to prove that God doesn’t really love each and every one of us, because he is no longer free to CHOOSE.

If love must be CHOSEN, then God must be free to choose. If He only made the loving choice to give us free will to allow us to love at the very beginning of time, then He is like a man in a forced marriage, who can never choose otherwise.

Doc said:

So too, God CAN create any kind of world he wishes. But if he creates a world with free agents, in which love is the goal, he CAN'T unilaterally intervene any time any where he chooses. Yes, he has the POWER to do so, but only in the sense that he has the power to create a circle rather than a square. GIVEN his choice to create a circle, he CAN'T create IT a square. GIVEN his choice to create THIS KIND OF WORLD, he CAN'T make IT a different kind of world.

Semeia:

Yes, He CAN intervene any time He wants – he can bring a flood or ten plagues or His own Son. But He CHOOSES not to out of total love for His created creatures. To say otherwise is to say that God loves the principle of love, NOT the individual human being. For him to love each and every one of us He must be free to choose, moment by moment.

Doc said:

So, the Christian Theist can say that God CAN'T stop evil with just as much metaphysical force as the Process Theist. The only differences are that a) the Christian Theist holds that God could have created a different world, with different metaphysical implications and constraints; b) because of "a," the Christian Theist holds that God is bound only insofar as the kind of world he created metaphysically requires him to be; hence c) the Christian theist says that the metaphysical constraints on God are much more complex than the process theist acknowledges, for they are such that God can sometimes unilaterally intervene and not others.

Semeia:

There is NO metaphysical constraint STOPPING God from preventing evil. He CHOOSES NOT TO, because to choose otherwise would be to restrict human free will and thus prevent humans from freely choosing love. And out of the deepest, most suffering love imaginable, he makes this choice over and over and over, moment by moment. If He didn’t, we could not say, by our own definition, that He was actually loving us. We would have to say rather that he loved the IDEA of love.

The only way to prevent evil is to restrict freedom. I could ensure that my child would never commit evil toward anyone if I locked her in a small room for the rest of her life (Genie) or drowned her in the tub (Andrea Yates). I have the power to do that – I am bigger and stronger than her. But I would be trading that assurance for her ability to love. Love is worth the risk – not just once set in motion at the beginning of time as a principle – but right here and right now with each life.

God is not bound by love, as that is a contradiction. God freely chooses love, in every moment, with every person. And there is no metaphysical constraint – only His boundless love.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 7:47 PM (GMT -6)

brandi

I know about TNT and NLP but my question is what if a person does not see a need to change or see a need for other choices?

Iconoclast

Then they won’t be motivated to change.

Now, you could of course provide some motivation for them to change and judgement is often what people use to try to provide this motivation. But of course if the person feels like they are being judged by you then it actually tends to create a negative motivation for them to change. This is what “Power begets Power” means.

Judgement is coming at someone with power. It tends to generate power in the other person, which is nothing but a motivation to come against you and what you are saying. This then generates all sort of logic meant to rationalize why what they were doing in the first place is REALLY, REALLY the right thing to do. They defend.

So, if you want to provide some motivation for them to change you must find some logic that would actually motivate them. This is where NLP is most powerful. NLP techniques help you learn what their Internal Motivation Strategy is. This strategy is of course a representational PROCESS they go through. You must also find some meaningful CONTENT in your communication that makes sense to them.

Now, if the person is doing something that is intensely destructive to their loved ones and you are one of the loved ones or a therapist helping the loved ones then you might consider providing some motivation by designing an intervention where you give the person loving feedback about how their behavior is causing pain to the loved ones and what the loved ones plan to do in the face of this behavior going forward.

brandi

Who am I to tell them (without judging) that this is inappropriate disciplinary action?

Iconoclast

If you think you can help someone, why wouldn’t you? It is not about judgement. It is about taking loving action. I BELIEVE that a person who is inappropriately disciplining their children is not going to get what they really want. It isn’t good for the children and it isn’t good for the parents. Therefore if I can find a helpful intervention I will do it. Of course, finding a helpful intervention in this case is exceedingly difficult. We all know that parents are very defensive when it comes to disciplining their kids too much or too little. Thus we typically don’t say anything until we get angry and frustrated and start justifying how it would be good to say something because they are really wrong to discipline their kids that way. And so, we finally say something out of anger and judgement and when we see the parents getting really defensive we confirm for ourselves once again how it is just impossible to give feedback to parents when it comes to disciplining their children. It is a vicious circle. And it is SO vicious of a circle because the underlying reasons why parents do not discipline their children very well are very complex. The mother who when she sees her 5 year old girl about to get run over by a car starts yelling at her and running toward her and when she gets there she grabs the girl by the arm and intensely berates her for not listening and for not minding. She does this out of fear which comes from a deep love for the child. Yet what message does the child get?

brandi

My question is this: WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON'S INTERNAL DEEP STRUCTURAL BELIEFS? I believe there are definitely times that we SHOULD but how do we decipher what is "right" beliefs and actions? And who are the "we" that decide this -- the majority rules? This can become VERY complicated if you want to counsel a person who has a totally different worldview or set of beliefs from yourself!

Iconoclast

Working at the level of the “right” worldview or actions (behavior) leads to a total quagmire. It is seldom effective unless the worldviews and behavior already mostly match up. Which they NEVER do it seems!

The model to look at in this situation is: See-Do-Get or WorldView-Behavior-Results. Your WorldView leads to your Behavior which leads to your Results. And then it circles back because the Results you get influence your WorldView.

The standard problem is that we seek to work at the level of WorldView or Behavior and we endlessly argue over these things and get nowhere. The place to focus on is Results.

It really comes down to this: What do people WANT? What Results are people after? Once you can influence someone on what a good Result would look like THEN you can start discussing what Behavior would lead to that Result. When difficulties come up between what Behaviors lead to what Results then one has a much better understanding of where the person’s WorldView may be limiting their Behavioral choices. And, of course, it may just be that OUR WorldView may get challenged in the process. But at least it will be more clear WHY. We will be able to get solid evidence from the other person about how X Behavior achieves Y Result.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/28/2002 12:58:50 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/27/2002 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra

It is true that the free-will of some victimizers was preserved, but it is also true that the free-will of a victim was destroyed. If God chose to cause one of the guards trip, giving Zosia just enough time to escape, no free-willed being’s ability to choose love would have been destroyed. On the contrary, if God chose to allow Zosia to be tortured and killed, her ability to choose love would be destroyed.

Iconoclast

Yes. This is the logic from the human point of view. But is this also true from God’s point of view?

Who can say?

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/27/2002 8:22 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

But denying the conclusiveness of these explanations is not the same as denying the goodness of God. It simply entails relocating the conclusiveness to faith in God’s goodness rather than our knowledge of God’s goodness.

Iconoclast

OK. It sounds like your position is that we CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY KNOW that God is good we CAN ONLY have FAITH that God is good.

Thus, you seek to show how every argument made about KNOWING that God is good IS NOT conclusive because you can cast doubt on it.

So, when someone waves keys in front of your eyes and asks you if you KNOW that they are moving what would you say?

I bet you would be able to find a way to cast doubt about whether we can know the keys are moving if you wanted to. But what does that prove? It only proves that when we choose to be skeptical about something then no force of argument can prevail.

I think that we can "conclusively know" that God is good as well as we can "conclusively know" that the Earth goes around the Sun. Would you agree with this?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/28/2002 01:24:17 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/27/2002 9:01 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia: True, [God] can’t make it BOTH a square and a circle, but certainly he can change his mind at any moment and change a square INTO a circle.

Doc: Leave it to you to sniff out how the analogy doesn't apply.

Since free will has to unfold over time, the decision to give it is a decision to leave it over time. So there is, I would argue, an element of IRREVOCABILITY to it. If God gives me the choice to do x or y, and then changes his mind because I'm going to do y, he never really gave me the choice to do x or y.

Semeia: If he can stop the sun and turn Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt and bring the ten plagues and bring Jesus into the world by a virgin birth, not to mention the creation of the universe to begin with, it would seem perfectly logical to assume that God has the power to do what he wants.

Doc: He has THE POWER, yes. But my argument is that the "can't " that restricts God is not a restriction of POWER, but of implications from his own decisions... the decision to create THIS KIND of world. Now clearly, his decision DOESN'T entail that God can EVER intervene, as you just proved. But I think just as clearly it entails that God can't ALWAYS intervene, as the existence of evil shows. And the ambiguity of the CAN and CAN'T concerns the variables of creation.

Semeia: If he wanted to change us into robots to do His bidding there is nothing at all stopping Him.

Doc: Unless he truly GAVE US free will -- which unfolds over time.

Semeia: To suggest otherwise is to suggest that God Himself lacks free will – that he is somehow bound by the principle of love such that once He decided at the beginning of creation to make free will creatures capable of love that he is forced by the “rules” or “principles” of creation in such a way that he can never again CHOOSE differently.

Doc: The choice to give freedom has to be irrevocable, within whatever limits and conditions God gave it. So yes, TO THIS EXTENT I don't think God is 'free" to revoke it. He binds himself to the implications of the world he created.

Semeia: If that were true, then we would have to say that God did not CHOOSE to love each of us individually, but rather that He CHOSE to love humans IN GENERAL, in the ABSTRACT, back at the start of creation.

Doc: I'm afraid I just don't follow your reasoning here.

Semeia: Which would mean that God Himself could not love. And the whole argument for Open Theism, that Love involves risk and must be chosen, when applied to God in this scenario would seem to prove that God doesn’t really love each and every one of us, because he is no longer free to CHOOSE.

Doc: It sounds like your suggesting that unless God has to chose who he will and will not love on a case by case basis, he cannot love. Is this what you're saying?

In any event, I simply don't see how God's decision to work within the constraints of the kind of world he created in any way affects the genuineness of his loving each and every one of us.

Semeia: If love must be CHOSEN, then God must be free to choose.

Doc: Two things here. I think that love must be chosen FOR CONTINGENT BEINGS WHO BY DEFINITION COULD BE OTHER THAN THEY ARE. But I don't think this applies to A NECESSARY BEING. God IS Love. He didn't choose to be God. And, in my view, he didn't CHOOSE to be love -- as though he could have just as easily turned out to be hateful.

But there was a choice in his loving us, I think. And this leads to my second point. He didn't have to LOVE US, even though he is love, because he didn't have to create beings with the capacity to receive and participate in love. But he CHOSE to. In this sense he chooses to love us.

[
Semeia: God CAN intervene any time He wants – he can bring a flood or ten plagues or His own Son. But He CHOOSES not to out of total love for His created creatures.

Doc: Do you want to bind yourself to the position that every time evil is allowed, it is for the purpose of love for the people involved? God loved Hitler so much he allowed him to carry out his program? I personally find this difficult.

But, if you are going to say that God CAN intervene any time he wants, I don't see any way to avoid this or some other "greater good" position. In each and every case, God decides to intervene or not. And since God always does the best thing, in each case it must be BETTER to intervene OR NOT. Hence, it was BETTER to allow Zosia to be tortured THAN NOT. You locate this "greater good" in God's love for the Nazi (or whoever) while the standard blueprint view would say it is for some mysterious greater good... but I don't see that it is IN PRINCIPLE different from the standard blueprint view.... and beset with the same difficulties.

The only way to avoid this, as Meph has argued, and as process thought admits, is to say God CAN'T intervene any time any way he chooses. My difference from Process thought is that I don't think this implies God can NEVER intervene. And the reason is because I believe God set up the boundaries/ metaphysical rules/ conditions/variables at the start.

Semeia: To say otherwise is to say that God loves the principle of love, NOT the individual human being. For him to love each and every one of us He must be free to choose, moment by moment.

Doc: As said above, I don't follow this.

Does God ever decide NOT to love "moment by moment:? If not, doesn't this render suspicious the postulation that he HAS to be free not to love in order TO love?

[

Semeia: There is NO metaphysical constraint STOPPING God from preventing evil.

Doc: I disagree. Free will has to be irrevocable, within the limits and conditions set by God. If its revocable, tits not free.

Semeia: He CHOOSES NOT TO, because to choose otherwise would be to restrict human free will and thus prevent humans from freely choosing love.

Doc: Yes. This is what I mean by "a metaphysical constraint." But if you grant this much, then there's no difference, so far as I can see, between saying "God chooses not to" and "God can't." Given that he chose love as a goal, and thus accepted freedom as its means, he CAN'T intervene any time or place he wants.

IF the rules of chess can be altered whenever one person wants, you ain't play'n chess!

Semeia: Aout of the deepest, most suffering love imaginable, he makes this choice over and over and over, moment by moment.

Doc: This is where we part. If its moment by moment, then you strapped with accepting that EVERY MOMENT of evil is allowed for loving purposes. If ever God sees its not loving to allow evil, he simply stops it. This is, to my mind, as problematic as any version of the bluprint worldview is.

okay, need to try to sleep. peace and joy till later

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/27/2002 9:16 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra

But denying the conclusiveness of these explanations is not the same as denying the goodness of God. It simply entails relocating the conclusiveness to faith in God’s goodness rather than our knowledge of God’s goodness.

Iconoclast

Iconoclast: OK. It sounds like your position is that we CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY KNOW that God is good we CAN ONLY have FAITH that God is good.

Let’s try it from this angle. I either choose to subordinate my knowledge of God’s goodness (which includes explanations of how God is good in any particular) to faith in God’s goodness, or I choose to subordinate my faith in God’s goodness to my knowledge of God’s goodness (in which case faith is proportionate to the persuasiveness of my explanation). Faith and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In both instances I would seek to increase knowledge rather than casting doubt on it. Both faith and knowledge important. However, I believe knowledge is relatively important whereas faith is decisively important.

quote:
Iconoclast

I think that we can "conclusively know" that God is good as well as we can "conclusively know" that the Earth goes around the Sun. Would you agree with this?

No. God is not a scientifically verifiable object. If God were, then eventually this would be conclusively proven and only idiots would deny it. The problem is not that we lack information, it is that we lack faith.

Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Edited by - Electra on 09/28/2002 02:18:57 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/28/2002 4:20 AM (GMT -6)

Page six has the first appearance on CVM of the Israeli Airlines: El-Al.

Of course I was not saying that "El" lived in a dorm room. I was saying that I thought this sort of thing was born of abstract discussions.

I am quite delighted that Electra furnished all those scripture references. And I plan to enjoy reading them when Bible Gateway comes back up online.

But you asked for a "straight up" offering on one thing. I'll put it back to you and ask how you, Electra, lay this out. OK? I quoted, "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards." How doe you relate that fact to "the hope in God's faithfulness?"

Thanks.

"Al"

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/28/2002 4:52 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra: But denying the conclusiveness of these explanations is not the same as denying the goodness of God. It simply entails relocating the conclusiveness to faith in God’s goodness rather than our knowledge of God’s goodness.

Want it or not, here is something in support of what you said, Electra. But there is irony in that it colors some other things you've said. (But only if you take this the way I'm offering it.

)

Perhaps Meph will like this too.

We can only know God in his divine energies. We can't know him in his essence. BUT THAT IS NOT ALL THAT MUST BE SAID. What also must be said is that God's energies have an object they are bestowed upon. And THAT is what is so often wrong about what is discussed in this debate. So often God's love is discussed as something that can be known in itself, AS AN OBJECT, and criqued AS AN OBJECT. That is what is wrong.

And in making the distinction she does, Electra distinguishes "faith in God’s goodness" from "knowledge of God’s goodness." I'm taking the later as being "about" that goodness. (So that is one place one might begin disagreeing with me.)

I take "faith in God's goodness" to be faith in our relationship with God and in God's relationship to us. (So I'm also not saying that this is faith in an objectified abstraction called "God's goodness.") It is faith in God ("The Lord") as he has "revealed himself unto us." ("Blessed be the Name of the Lord.")

I think that the identification of God as being rooted in his essence leads to this problem. Treating God's energies as "objectified" might open the door to a similar situation.

"See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should ba called the Children of God."

There is nothing without the "bestowed upon" part.

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 9/28/2002 7:45 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I am quite delighted that Electra furnished all those scripture references. And I plan to enjoy reading them when Bible Gateway comes back up online.

Here are a few more echoes of the Exod. 34:6–7 material: Deut. 5:9–10; 7:9; 1 Kings 3:6; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 9:31; Ps. 106:45; 11:4; 112:4; Jer. 30:11; Lam. 3:32; Dan. 9:4. I think Crosswalk.com is better than Bible Gateway. Enjoy.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

Edited by - Electra on 09/28/2002 12:46:29 PM

108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual